On that point i must agree whit TVA 22 it's most appropriate to refer to them japanese

And thanks TVA 22 thats the best page for the IJN I have ever seen it's allmost impossible to find good pages about the IJN

PC- please send them to me, i would like to see them in game.

TVA22- Sorry i you were offended, i have japanese friends myself and it was dumb. Nice page btw.

Akula-Hows the work going?

Fine
The cruiser is finished and the IJN Shokaku is going good
Allso thought on starting on the Yorktown

TVA 22 do you thin a Nagato Battleship can be a good improved dreadnought class ship a 1918-1935 period battleship has not been made as far as I know

TVA22- Try to refer to them as "Japanese," the war is over, and there's no reason for any of you europeans or americans (I'm one) to call them "japs". Agreed, I will go back and see if I have posted the word in my posts (corrected), and alert others who have done so. I don't know about anyone else’s use of the word, but often times (if I have used it). It would be used simply as a abbreviation, for a longer word. Same with any mistakes of not capitalizing certain words. We all agree we have Japanese friends, and we all agree the word is stupid to use for any reason. I believe many of the people who use the word know no better, and use it without malice, and have grown up around Veterans of WWII, who use the word frequently and make no connection, with the word as offensive.

Yoda Power- PC- please send them to me, I would like to see them in game. Remember this is just the first row. But I'll send them to you anyway.

Remember this is just the first row. But I'll send them to you anyway.

I know, but im just being curious(sp?).:rolleyes:

im having some problem with my mail, so cant you just post it here?

Akula, I think a better choice for a Japanese mid-class battleship than the Nagato would be the kongo class ships http://64.124.221.191/kongo_c.htm because the Nagato class ships had the heaviest armament with the exception of the Yamatos in the entire IJN. So I think a Nagato should be more like a common first-rate Japanese battleship, similar to a South Dakota for America, which should outclass the Nagato slightly. Then Yamatos and Iowas should be really rare in this scenario, as they would be the top of the line command ships. Which makes me think, were you planning on doing any battleships after your carriers akula? Or destroyers, or more cruisers? Not to rush you or anything, but I like the realistic look of your models better than the firaxis ones, and I think it would be great if you could make some of these great big gun ships of the war. But if not, thats ok, I know what a pain it can be.

And thanks for being so accomodating on the nasty word issue everyone. I left apolyton a long time ago, right before I started making units because I raised the same point, and just got attacked by everyone ruthlessly. I realize lots of the same people visit both there and cfc, but for some reason no one agreed with me then.

I was sweying between the Nagato and Kongo class so it's going to be the Kongo then

Yes I plan to make some more WW II ships I just need to finish the Shokaku and Yorktown im looking for a WW II destroyer preferably 1920-30 and non-western got any good ideas?

hmm seems like my thread has become a "what to do next" thread for Akula, ohwell its a good cause and it keeps the thread on top. Just go on.

Don't know too much about destroyers, sorry, I'm more into battleships.

Neither do I Im best at carriers
But I thin I found some
Either the IJN Asashio or the IJN Akatsuki

Originally posted by TVA22
Akula, I think a better choice for a Japanese mid-class battleship than the Nagato would be the kongo class ships
Allright I made a model of the ship (I Think it was the Kirishima)
You seem to know more about battleships than I do what do you think?

I think it looks just like the Kongo classes. Your ability to capture the realistic look of these ships is so fantastic. I wish the firaxis iowa class looked more like your ships. I simply loathe the cartoonish look of the firaxis modern warships.

wow thats really cool, Akula. Which battleship should the british and french have? And what about Canada?

I don't remember canada having any big gun battleships
The only battleship I can come up whit for France is the Dunkerque (exept the Richelieu)
The british could have something like King George V as this is one of the most famous

Canada had no battleships and if i recall correctly, no cruisers.
The Brits had, at various times, the battleships: HMS Prince of Whales & HMS Repulse (A modern BB & old BC, force Z), HMS Warspite, Royal Soveriegn, Ramilles, Revenge, and a fourth R class I can't recall, all were un-modernized except Warspite (Roughly compareable to the Ise, Hyuga, Yamashiro, & Fuso). They can after Pearl Harbor to Ceylon.
Late in the war Duke of York, Anson, Howe, & KGV (all modern KGV class) escorted the RN Carriers (with armoured decks).
The KGVs were the heavilest armoured allied vessels built during the war.
The Nelson and Rodney I believe never saw the Pacific. Neither did the Repulse's sister Renown. There was one British BC finished in 1946.

France didn't have any military presence in the region during the time frame. In Europe they had Richelieu, the BCs Dunkerque & Strassbourg, and a handfull of old Brenatge, and such.

Russia stationed the Heavy cruiser Kirov in Vladivostok. In Europe they had 1 early dreadnought, the Komona (Gangut Class)

The Japanese had 2 completed modern BBs, Yamato & Musashi
2 heavy old BBs, Nagato &
4 old BBs, Fuso, Yamashiro, Hyuga, & Ise
4 ancient BCs of outdated British Design: Kongo (Built by Vickers in 1914), Kirishima, Hiei, & Haruna.
The Battlecruisers were based on the British Tiger class.

The Yamatos have two outstanding reports, one is that there guns couldn't hit a battleship at point blank & others that they were decently accurate. They lacked the firepower of an Amercian fast battleship (slower muzzle velocity, slower rate of fire) despite there heavier guns, and there armor was weaker than that of either an Iowa or a KGV. (Japan lacked the industrial strength to compete.) Vs. the Iowas, they were slower, less powerfull, less protected, bigger, but greater weapons range. The Iowas' guns could penetrate their armor but they could not recipricate the favor.

The USN featured:

Iowa Class: Iowa, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Missouri (plus two never completed)
South Dakota Class: South Dakota, Indiana, Massechuettes, Alabama
North Carolina Class: North Carolina, Washington
Colorado Class: Maryland, Colorado, West Virginia
New Mexico Class: New Mexico, Mississipi, Idaho
Pennsylvania Class: Pennsylvania, Arizona
California Class: California, Tennessee
Nevada Class: Nevada, Oklahoma
New York Class: New York, (a second I can't remember)
The Arkansas did not see action in the Pacific
USN also had a few Guam class BCs that featured 9-12" guns and could out run any other capital ship ever built.

The Montana Class (33% bigger than Iowas) were canceled.
The Utah was only a target ship.

Turkey as I recall had 1 dreadnought

Italy had 3 modern, Roma, Littorio, & Vittorio Vetta (sp?)
5-6 old, but fast.

Germany had: 2 or so Pre-Dreadnoughts
2 Bismark Class
2 Scharnhorst Class
3 Panzersshiff (sp?)

The Japanese had a cronic shortage of destroyers. They chose to build more capital ships rather than support ships.

The Australians had 2 CA (Australia, Canberra) & 3 CLs (Perth, Sydney, Hobart)

The Dutch had 2 or 3 CLs, De Ruyter was Adm. Doorman's Flag ship.

NZ had 2 CLs, 1 of them fought the Graf Spee. They served as in the RN.

The Bismarck was one of the largest Battleships in the world when it was created, and certainly larger than any American or British battleship of the time. (40,000+ tons)

Yamato and Musashi were by far the largest battleships in the world, I believe displacing 66,000 tons each.

Scharnhorst (can't remember the other one) was a Battlecruiser. Graf Spree also was a battlecruiser. These weren't in the Pacific though.

I need to dig up my WWII book, which lists figures for alot of this stuff.

When will this scenario be ready? I am dying to play a pacific scenario for PTW for a very long time...

Originally posted by jayband
When will this scenario be ready? I am dying to play a pacific scenario for PTW for a very long time... This scenario is no longer in works. I stopped when the people behind SOE started SOP.

Yoda I didnt know that to be honest, considering all the work you put into this you would be very welcome in the SOP team you know.

Originally posted by Kentonio
Yoda I didnt know that to be honest, considering all the work you put into this you would be very welcome in the SOP team you know. I know, actually recon asked me once(a long time ago), but I really have to much to do right know. Unless I can join as a passive member?

You would be very welcome in any context Yoda, your input would be very much appreciated. SOP has been on the back burner while SOE is completed of course, but with SOE in its final stage of playtesting it isnt going to be long before SOP comes back to life.

well my only input would be: Read this thread, there is alot of material in it IMHO.